[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190924152436.hxyu7ip5nrynicb5@box>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 18:24:36 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] mm, page_owner, debug_pagealloc: save and dump
freeing stack trace
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 05:15:01PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 9/24/19 1:42 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >> --- a/mm/page_owner.c
> >> +++ b/mm/page_owner.c
> >> @@ -24,6 +24,9 @@ struct page_owner {
> >> short last_migrate_reason;
> >> gfp_t gfp_mask;
> >> depot_stack_handle_t handle;
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
> >> + depot_stack_handle_t free_handle;
> >> +#endif
> >
> > I think it's possible to add space for the second stack handle at runtime:
> > adjust page_owner_ops->size inside the ->need().
>
> Uh that would complicate the code needlessly? The extra memory overhead
> isn't that much for a scenario that's already a debugging one
> (page_owner), I was more concerned about the cpu overhead, thus the
> static key.
Okay, fair enough.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists